Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] Introduce provisioning primitives

Dave Chinner
2023-06-07T02:15:27Z

On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 02:14:44PM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 8:57 AM Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 02 2023 at 8:52P -0400,
> > Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 11:44:27AM -0700, Sarthak Kukreti wrote:
> > > > > The only way to distinquish the caller (between on-behalf of user data
> > > > > vs XFS metadata) would be REQ_META?
> > > > >
> > > > > So should dm-thinp have a REQ_META-based distinction? Or just treat
> > > > > all REQ_OP_PROVISION the same?
> > > > >
> > > > I'm in favor of a REQ_META-based distinction.
> > >
> > > Why? What *requirement* is driving the need for this distinction?
> >
> > Think I answered that above, XFS delalloc accounting parity on thinp.
> >
> I actually had a few different use-cases in mind (apart from the user
> data provisioning 'fear' that you pointed out): in essence, there are
> cases where userspace would benefit from having more control over how
> much space a snapshot takes:
>
> 1) In the original RFC patchset [1], I alluded to this being a
> mechanism for pre-allocating space for preserving space for thin
> logical volumes. The use-case I'd like to explore is delta updatable
> read-only filesystems similar to systemd system extensions [2]: In
> essence:
> a) Preserve space for a 'base' thin logical volume that will contain a
> read-only filesystem on over-the-air installation: for filesystems
> like squashfs and erofs, pretty much the entire image is a compressed
> file that I'd like to reserve space for before installation.
> b) Before update, create a thin snapshot and preserve enough space to
> ensure that a delta update will succeed (eg. block level diff of the
> base image). Then, the update is guaranteed to have disk space to
> succeed (similar to the A-B update guarantees on ChromeOS). On
> success, we merge the snapshot and reserve an update snapshot for the
> next possible update. On failure, we drop the snapshot.

Sounds very similar to the functionality blksnap is supposed to
provide....

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20230404140835.25166-1-sergei.shtepa@veeam.com/

> 2) The other idea I wanted to explore was rollback protection for
> stateful filesystem features: in essence, if an update from kernel 4.x
> to 5.y failed very quickly (due to unrelated reasons) and we enabled
> some stateful filesystem features that are only supported on 5.y, we'd
> be able to rollback to 4.x if we used short-lived snapshots (in the
> ChromiumOS world, the lifetime of these snapshots would be < 10s per
> boot).

Not sure that blksnap has a "roll origin back to read-only snapshot"
feature yet, but that's what you'd need for this. i.e. on success,
drop the snapshot. On failure, "roll origin back to snapshot and
reboot".

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com